I would like to know if - do you have to fight?
I understand that if there is a disparity of force you can use your gun to defend yourself. But what if there is no disparity of force, being that it appears to be an even match.

My example is that a BG wants to fight you but you decline and try to leave. But the BG has you trapped with no escape. The BG has no weapons except fists. Can you draw and shoot if the BG won’t move out of your way so you can leave or do you have to fight?

Andrewsmith1

January 30, 2011, 09:20 PM

I am 5'11" and weight 125lbs. My best bet is to try to outrun him and hope a few larger people will help me out. I will do my best to fight, but I would certainly hope a few good Samaritans would help me out. I would not draw on an unarmed man unless there was a chance he was going to get my gun from me and use it on me..

howwie

January 30, 2011, 09:52 PM

I'm a skinny short guy too. I just avoid the fighting types. But...in the scenario we have would I pull a gun? Heck no. I'm no lawyer but I'm pretty sure I'd be in the wrong big time. I'd draw a cell phone if I thought it was that serious. If for some reason a fight is unavoidable and I'm attacked then I guess I'd fight as dirty and well as possible. But some of the others may know what to tell you as far as what you legally can and can't do. Stay away from the fighting types works for me.

kraigwy

January 30, 2011, 11:24 PM

The BG has no weapons except fists. Can you draw and shoot if the BG won’t move out of your way so you can leave

Not without ending up in jail.

Death from Afar

January 31, 2011, 12:22 AM

Quote:
The BG has no weapons except fists. Can you draw and shoot if the BG won’t move out of your way so you can leave

Not without ending up in jail.

One of the best responses in a long time, well said my good man.

Aguila Blanca

January 31, 2011, 12:25 AM

My example is that a BG wants to fight you but you decline and try to leave. But the BG has you trapped with no escape. The BG has no weapons except fists. Can you draw and shoot if the BG won’t move out of your way so you can leave or do you have to fight?
As usual -- "it depends."

In this case, it depends on how the law is written in your state -- as well as on what the prosecutor thinks, and maybe what a jury would think.

I am not a lawyer and I don't make any claim to have read the self defense laws for all 57 states (that's a joke, get it?). Most of the ones I have read tie the justification for the use of lethal force on the belief of the victim (you -- the victim of an assault, not the bad guy who is the "victim" of your shooting him). The general theme (again, of those I have read) is that the use of deadly (or "lethal") force is justified if you fear that you will suffer death or serious (some call it "grievous") bodily harm.

Most (of those I have read) also include an exception for "mutual combat." Your scenario does NOT fit mutual combat. If the other guy wants to fight and you want to leave, that's not mutual combat. Mutual combat is where two guys agree to "settle this" in the alley behind the bar, and when one guy is getting his teeth knocked out he decides to change the rules and pull a gun. That won't fly, because he agreed to the fight.

In your case, the complicating factor is that you have specified that there's no disparity of force. If the assailant is a huge young body builder and you're an arthritic senior citizen (like me), it's easy to argue that you were afraid if he attacked you he'd kill or seriously injure you. If you're about the same size and age and physical condition as the assailant -- the criteria are the same, but if it gets to court it will be subject to what lawyers call the "reasonable man test." In other words: You say you feared death or serious bodily harm. Would a hypothetical "reasonable man" in the same situation fear death or serious bodily harm? That's the way the question will be presented to a jury.

racine

January 31, 2011, 12:34 AM

I've been in more fights since about the 4th grade, about 2-3 a year and about the same with my younger brother. In College I realized I got lucky and never broke my nose or lost a tooth-I just knew how to duck I guess but I got quite a few blackies and fat lips.

That being said, I lost any and all interest in duking it out in college when I realized that folks stopped fighting fair. Use your fists, they use brass knuckles, a blade, guns. Having a weapon encouraged me to develop responsibility and I learned to walk away.

If someone has me in a corner without and exit, I'll take them out. I have no guarantee they aren't armed-with something. If brandishing my weapon doesn't discourage the encounter then the choice is mine.

hondauto

January 31, 2011, 01:11 AM

I would venture a guess that you'd have to find another way out of that situation..I have martial arts training,so for me a quick snap kick to the knee would end the confrontation quickly..He's going to be in too much pain to stand,let alone fight..
Drawing your gun or knife in that situation would make your force far deadlier than his and you would be subject to criminal punishment.

StrongSideArmsInc

January 31, 2011, 01:20 AM

Check you local laws first,
In florida, you have the right to use deadly force if:

" You have a well found feeling that the threat is likely to cause great bodily harm, death or disfigurment"

A case just a few months ago in Tampa, were a guy asked another guy to turndown his radio in a neighborhood. Guy jumps out of the truck and starts to beat the dude up using only his fist. Good guy gets away and starts to run away, bad guys catches up and gets him on the ground, begins to rearrange his face. Good guy, pulls out his trusty .380 and puts one in between the running lights. Bad guy is prononced dead on scene.
Case was reviewd by state attorney, good guy exnorated.

What ever you choose to do, make sure you can clearly articulate why you shot.

war_elephant

January 31, 2011, 01:38 AM

This is one of those depends on the curcumstances. If your attacker is 240 lbs of muscle, and you are 125 lbs, you MAY be justified. What it boils down to is, are you in fear of death or serious bodily injury. Also, you dont know if the attacker is a martial arts expert or not. It goes back to the main question, are you in fear of death or serious bodily injury. Also being armed with a weapon, if you are knocked down, or he gains control of the weapon during the fight, what then. If you cant talk your way out, and you are not bigger than the attacker, you may be justified. Best option is to try to avoid being cornered, but if you are cornered and you cant talk your way out of it, then you have to quickly evaluate, would a REASONABLE person be in fear of death or serious bodily injury. I usually also carry pepper spray, and would try that first. It is not a bad idea to carry something like that as an alternative to deadly force, or at least to give yourself some options. I would at least draw the gun (unless he is too close) rather than possibly spend a month in the hospital after being beaten. If I am bigger than the attacker, I may try fighting only if I had no other choice. Push the guy back and hopefully off balance, then run like crazy. Firearm should be the last option.

JerryM

January 31, 2011, 09:24 AM

One can only use deadly force if he believes he is danger of death or great bodily harm. The scenario does not seem to suggest that.

If one stays away from places where fights occur, stays sober and minds his own business he probably will never have to fight. I never have. But if the choices were to go to prison or take a whipping I would stay out of prison.

Regards,
Jerry

Double Naught Spy

January 31, 2011, 09:30 AM

Are you in fear of grave bodily harm or death from the guy who wants to fight you? Is the fear realistic such that a jury would believe it as well?

Skans

January 31, 2011, 10:33 AM

If I'm cornered and someone is threatening to beat the tar out of me....and if I think there is a reasonable chance that I'm going to get hurt, I'm pulling my gun and am going to use it.

brickeyee

January 31, 2011, 10:39 AM

The BG has no weapons except fists. Can you draw and shoot if the BG won’t move out of your way so you can leave or do you have to fight?

It is going to depend on both statute law and common (case) law in the jurisdiction.

In Virginia fists are not considered deadly weapons (despite them killing plenty of people).

You would have to demonstrate that they were in this case to allow the use of deadly force.

BlueTrain

January 31, 2011, 10:44 AM

Boys don't grow up getting in fights the way they used to. That is, I don't think so, not where I live now. So people don't have much of an understanding about fighting. The first thing is, you will get hurt. The second thing is, getting hurt isn't the end of everything. Sometimes standing your ground is worth getting hurt. There are even times when getting killed is worth it, though maybe not to yourself. Those are the facts of life. Another thing they tell you is that bullies are cowards. That just ain't so. Bullies are as used to being pushed around as they are to pushing other people around. It comes with the territory.

But I'd run if I had half a chance, most of the time, only I can't run as well as I used to.

Skans

January 31, 2011, 11:15 AM

First, you really don't know what the attacker has - how do you verify that he doesn't have a gun, knife or something else?

Second, if someone has you cornered (meaning that there is no escape, except through the attacker), is fully prepared and capable of beating the tar out of you, or worse, and you are carrying a gun, what the heck are you waiting for??? You want to give the attacker the first punch?

No. I know that laws differ in various states. But, if you are legally carrying a gun and this happens, you pull your gun and fire. If you want to give some kind of warning, I suppose that's up to you and dependant on the situation.

I think we all need to know in our own minds when and when not to pull out our weapons. In my mind, this scenario has crossed that line.

For any of you folks out there that have boxed, kickboxed, or have physically fought someone "better" than you, you know that there are people who are fully capable of destroying you without the use of weapons. The one thing I learned when I used to spar was that there is ALWAYS someone out there who is capable of breaking you into pieces.......and you can't know who these people are just by looking at them. The only time I'm ever going to voluntarily fight someone is sparing in a controlled environment or in a match - not some stranger on the street for kicks and giggles if I'm armed.

Constantine

January 31, 2011, 11:31 AM

Ah...Florida...How I love thee...

Sixer

January 31, 2011, 11:37 AM

If I'm cornered and someone is threatening to beat the tar out of me....and if I think there is a reasonable chance that I'm going to get hurt, I'm pulling my gun and am going to use it.

THIS.

It's all about whether YOU fear for your personal safety. There is no "cookie cutter" answer for this question, BUT.... unless you know the BG... you should assume that he could Bruce Lee your a$$.... and treat him as such a threat.

Scorch

January 31, 2011, 12:19 PM

My example is that a BG wants to fight you but you decline and try to leave. But the BG has you trapped with no escape. The BG has no weapons except fists. Can you draw and shoot if the BG won’t move out of your way so you can leave or do you have to fight?
The bad guy is armed, he has fists, and people have been hospitalized and beaten to death before by a man using just his fists. In most states, all that is required to justify the drawing of your weapon is the fear of bodily harm, which the BG could certainly inflict upon you. Other states may require you to be in fear for your life, and even then I would draw and fire in this situation. The fact that the BG has you cornered and you have no avenue of retreat leaves you very little room for discussion, the BG obviously feels he can overpower you and have his way with you, so use of deadly force would be justifiable IMO. But, as usual, if in doubt call your local Police Department or Prosecuting Attorney and ask.

pgdion

January 31, 2011, 12:23 PM

Basically if he is beating you to death .... then you can shoot.

I'd say not likely unless he at least picks up a board or a bottle or something to use as a weapon, and then tries to use it, or at least tells you he intends to use it to kill you.

In my state, you gun is always your last option and even then only if your life depends on it.

edit - extra info
------------------------------
In MN it can't be fear of bodily harm, it can't even be actual bodily harm, not even great bodily harm justifies shooting someone (ie they break your arm, you still can't shoot them). It has to be a real threat of substantial bodily harm or death before you can use deadly force (be it a gun or whatever).

So basically it has to be a fear of death or maiming and evidence that supports that your fear was rational (you can't just claim you feared for your life, the situation has to justify it).

hondauto

January 31, 2011, 02:09 PM

Remind me to never move to MN.
That sounds like some people are crippled for life or dead,because someone wants your wallet..Jesus!

OldMarksman

January 31, 2011, 02:25 PM

The bad guy is armed, he has fists, and people have been hospitalized and beaten to death before by a man using just his fists. In most states, all that is required to justify the drawing of your weapon is the fear of bodily harm, which the BG could certainly inflict upon you. Not exactly. More accurately, in most states (and there are at least two limited exceptions), a civilian may only draw when involved in a lawful act of self defense--that is, he must have a basis for a reasonable belief that he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, and that he has no other recourse than the use of deadly force.

The fact that people have been killed by blows from fists is unlikely to hold much sway unless there is a clear disparity of force.

Even then, if the assailant or assailants are armed only with fists, justification could prove a difficult task.

Here is a true account about a citizen who was attacked, without provocation, by more than one person using only their fists; he could not escape, and he used his firearm only when he was actually about to lose conscousness.

He was charged, kept in jail for an extended period, and tried more than once. He was ultimately set free through the efforts of expert witnesses Massad Ayoob and Marty Hayes.

But, as usual, if in doubt call your local Police Department or Prosecuting Attorney and ask.Probably not the best sources....

threegun

January 31, 2011, 06:01 PM

Its a very sad day in America that a citizen would be forced to take a physically beating as apposed to utilizing the right of self defense. I carry because I don't want to be a (helpless) victim. I will retreat whenever possible. I will not take a beating.

My example is that a BG wants to fight you but you decline and try to leave. But the BG has you trapped with no escape. The BG has no weapons except fists. Can you draw and shoot if the BG won’t move out of your way so you can leave or do you have to fight?

In this case once retreat was no longer an option I would pull my firearm, point it at the ground, and inform the bad guy that I was in fear of my life. If he advanced I would be forced to fire.

The law says fear of death or grave bodily injury. So if this guy was so puny to not be able to cause GBI different story.

Double Naught Spy

January 31, 2011, 06:18 PM

The first shooting by a CHL holder in Texas was against an unarmed man. The shooter was pummelled about his face, breaking bones and causing permanent eye damage to one eye. The aggressor walked away, and then decided he had not inflicted enough harm and returned to hit the CHL holder some more. At that point, he was shot one time in the chest and later died.

The shooter was charged with murder and later no-billed by the grand jury. His name was Gordon Hale.

threegun

January 31, 2011, 06:40 PM

My coworker drew and pointed at a man beating his car window. He simply told the thug if the window breaks you get shot. The thug continued shouting for my coworker to shoot him. Then he stopped and returned to his vehicle and called police. Police investigated and asked my buddy if he wanted to press charges. Nothing happened to either.

So under certain circumstances you can pull your gun legally without firing.

tomwalshco

January 31, 2011, 07:19 PM

"....and later no-billed by the grand jury."

What the heck does that mean??

Double Naught Spy

January 31, 2011, 07:25 PM

No-billed is a failure to indict. I believe that is the correct terminology, but if not, then it just means that they will not give the case to the DA to prosecute because they do not believe their is sufficient evidence to prosecute. Charges are dropped.

Dwight55

January 31, 2011, 08:52 PM

It would be a pretty strange place (and at 66 I've been in some strange places) that did not offer either another exit, . . . or weapons at hand.

I would first pull out my cell phone, . . . and I would do 911, . . . knowing that if the call gets connected, . . . someone will come. I don't have to talk, . . . plead or anything, . . . boys in blue are supposed to be on the way.

Next thought is "where is exit stage left?". Take it if you can get it.

Last thought: I'm 66, . . . got a heart condition, . . . I've done all I can do, . . . this dude is going to back down, . . . or fall down: his choice, . . . but again, . . . my last choice, . . . my last resort, . . . I''m not taking a beat down from anybody, . . . anytime, . . . anywhere that I can stop, . . . and if it takes 230 grain lead to stop it, . . . I'll call a lawyer and we'll just have to work it out.

May God bless,
Dwight

B.N.Real

January 31, 2011, 08:59 PM

Dwight,by the time you go through all that,the bad guy will have killed you.

You need to understand you have the right to live free of fear of people who refuse to do the right things in society.

A sorry piece of 'stuff' decides to crush your skull because he sees an old man in front of him and he thinks he can crush your skull just for fun-needs a bullet sandwich to reconsider his course of action.

Humming and hawing while he closes in on you guarantees you will either be killed or permanently injured for the rest of your life.

Throw that phone at his face as you draw your handgun to fire it.

***As far as shooting an unarmed man-how do I know this guy is'nt some bad hombre that has a list of assault offenses a mile long and just likes to beat up on old men for a kick.

If he's got me cornered and he's closing-he will get a real close up look at a gun barrel-with a single statement .

"You got one second to get the xxxx out of my way."

I won't give him the chance to jump me either.

I've lived a supremely odd life where at some times I never thought 'd make it to twenty years old much less the 51 I am now.

I have no intention of letting some idiot force me to live the rest of my life in a home somewhere becuase he crushed in my skull becuase I was "trying to give him a chnace to change his mind becuase WE WERE EVENLY MATCHED."

When I am out on the street and someone-ANYONE-vectors towards me to step in my way-I already consider myself woefully undermatched to that threat.

Even if that person is a 12 year old kid with his hand in his jacket pocket.

Why?

Because that person KNOWS what he is capable of and what he is trying to do.

I have no idea what this person is capable of or why they have suddenly decided to pick me out of a crowd of people on the street to start an issue with.

In fact,simply drawing your weapon without there being a very real threat is you getting arrested.

But I will certainly have my hand on my firearm ready to use it if necessary.

I will also be changing my direction to try and see if that person continues to vector directly at me.

That person may only be asking for a light or directions but you never know.

As I am getting old and looking really old now-I definitely see the change in some young people's attitudes about me and my physical ability to be a threat to them.

Twenty five years ago,when my dad was alive and as old looking as I am now,I convinced him to buy a cheap Charter Arms 38 special and two years after that ,he defended his life against a truck with three people that were ,at 2:00 in the morning, trying to run him off the road to rob him.

The North Carolina backroads where my dad grew up,you get pulled out of your car at 2;00 in the morning,you could be dead until the sun comes up before someone finds you.

So don't tell me about all the phone calls you'd make and all the time you'll have to think about what you'd do.

Because when it happens,like my dad,who was a Korean war vet,one crazy North Carolina country boy and who drove away from that truck at a hundred miles per hour for five miles before they caught up with him,you are just going to be trying to stay alive.

Carter

January 31, 2011, 10:02 PM

My example is that a BG wants to fight you but you decline and try to leave. But the BG has you trapped with no escape. The BG has no weapons except fists. Can you draw and shoot if the BG won’t move out of your way so you can leave or do you have to fight?

Nope, not unless he's one big dude and I feel his intent is to kill me. Now if I get hit and start going fuzzy and he's not stopping, thats a different story.

These what-if-scenario's have a million different outcomes. Generally speaking though, if a person is unarmed and there isn't lethal force of some sort present, one can not draw his weapon in SD.

Getting in to a fist fight with a CCW is not a smart idea either. In NC fighting is called affray, and its a crime. Therefore, you would have just committed a crime with a firearm in your possession. Granted, once you go to court and if you're able to prove he wouldn't let you leave you may get your gun back and all charges dropped, but you still probably are gonna have gone through a lot of trouble.

Best advice, get away any way you can, call the police, etc.

Double Naught Spy

January 31, 2011, 11:35 PM

My example is that a BG wants to fight you but you decline and try to leave. But the BG has you trapped with no escape.

So are you trapped indoors?

Scorch said...
The bad guy is armed, he has fists, and people have been hospitalized and beaten to death before by a man using just his fists.

By this logic, the aggressor would also be armed with elbows, knees, feet, head, and biohazards (saliva, blood).

In a previous thread, (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=336430&highlight=disarmed) you noted...
That's what toppled the Shah. He disarmed his enemies, but forgot he could not disarm his army. When the populace revolted and he sicced the army on 'em, the army said no, and since we have the guns you gotta go.

When you say the shah disarmed his enemies do you mean that he cut body parts off their bodies, particularly those parts that could be used to cause harm? You noted that he didn't disarm his military that eventually turned on him successfully because they had guns.

I would first pull out my cell phone, . . . and I would do 911, . . . knowing that if the call gets connected, . . . someone will come. I don't have to talk, . . . plead or anything, . . . boys in blue are supposed to be on the way.

The problem with using cell phones in this situation is that 911 might not have the ability to know your specific location or to know it in a timely manner. The boys in blue may not be coming for quite a while or might not actually arrive at your particular location.
http://www.digitallanding.com/Phone/article_display.cfm/article_id/4387

In other words, calling 911 maybe should not be high priority given that you need to protect yourself now, in real time.

You need to understand you have the right to live free of fear of people who refuse to do the right things in society.

Sure you have the right to live free of fear, but that does not mean lethal force is warranted or legal.

Humming and hawing while he closes in on you guarantees you will either be killed or permanently injured for the rest of your life.

No it does not guarantee that you will be killed or permanently injured. These sorts of fights happen every day without the victim being killed or permanently injured.

Rufus T Firefly

January 31, 2011, 11:59 PM

Read your local laws. Read news stories on how similar cases are handled. Talk to your local police dept. Then, when faced with making a decision ask yourself, "what would a cop do here?" Find out what caliber and brand of ammo they use. Use it. A lawyer could brand you a renegade for using super corner turning destroyer ammo.

JohnKSa

February 1, 2011, 12:14 AM

Can you draw and shoot if the BG won’t move out of your way so you can leave or do you have to fight?Absolutely not. Deadly force should not be considered in this situation as it is stated.

As long as it remains a standoff there is no justification for use of deadly force. If possible you should ask someone to call the police or call 911 yourself if you can.

However, if the BG attacks you or attempts to attack you then the situation is very different and you might very well be justified in defending yourself by shooting him depending on the circumstances of the situation (e.g. disparity of force). However you are not justified in shooting just to escape the situation in the absence of actual violence or attempted violence.

In some areas you might be legally justified in drawing your gun but NOT shooting to demonstrate to the BG that it might be in his best interest not to attack you.

TX law allows a person to draw a gun to create the apprehension that deadly force might be used. That can be done legally when force (just plain force, not deadly force) is justified--in other words, the legal justification for pulling a gun is more lenient than the legal justification for actually firing the gun.

HOWEVER, it's not clearly spelled out in TX law that a standoff such as the situation you describe would justify the use of force so you might not even be justified in pulling your firearm unless it became obvious that an attack was imminent.

rifleman8

February 1, 2011, 12:27 AM

I'm not old enough to carry a handgun (I'm 19), but this thread caught my eye. A note I would like to make is that there are no more fair fights. "Fistfights" are non existent, everyone seems to carry or implement some sort of weapon nowadays. A kid I know was stabbed, and bled out, during what started as a fistfight, which goes to show you never know what you are up against. I avoid fights at all costs, even though I train in Kenpo, and so should you. In this situation, I would try to defuse it, and if that didn't work, leave. Running is often the best defense, it doesn't matter what others think of you so long as you survive. But I would not think shooting is justifiable in this situation.

sirsloop

February 1, 2011, 01:11 AM

Fists kill people every day. If the guy was really serious and there was I was cornered, I'd draw and hope the dude backs up so I don't have to shoot him.

dec41971

February 1, 2011, 01:51 AM

You really need to ask this? Gun is a weapon of last resort self defense and that should mean something no matter where you stand on 2A. Well fact it it will depend on what a DA thinks, it will depend on what 12 of your peers think.

I am all for 2A but I am against callous or anything that might be construed as such in taking a human life. Just being honest, if I am on that July and I have any doubt, you wont like to hear what I'd vote for. Just think about that. At least I am honest to say so, and I expect the same to apply to me too.

You must understand that if a guy is dead and you are not, by nature people feel since he can't talk for himself, they have to stand up for him. Regardless of what anyone says the simple fact is for practical purposes, the burden of proof is on you. I wouldn't want to be in that position. I'd much prefer to take a few punches to that. :D

I like sirsloop's response. I'd draw if I really believe death or grievous harm was possible. I'm only going to pull that trigger if I have absolutely no other option and the draw didn't stop him cold. :rolleyes:

sirsloop

February 1, 2011, 10:17 AM

Yeah... I mean do you really want to get in a fist fight while wearing a pistol?? That's absurd... might as well give the dude your pistol. I was once told by someone that has been carrying daily for a very long time that if you draw on someone you had better be 100% ready to use it without hesitation. Having said that if you draw on someone and can prevent a serious conflict without shooting its a big win. You gotta be crazy to want to shoot somebody... :confused:

bighead46

February 1, 2011, 10:46 AM

I live in Florida which was a really pro-gun state but things are changing. That said- we have a "punch in the nose" aspect they tell you when you get a concealed weapons license. The gist is- you cannot kill a guy if all he is going to do is punch you in the nose- your life has to be actually threatened. Since we are a pretty conservative state I would figure other states are even more adamant about not shooting someone in such a situation.

threegun

February 1, 2011, 05:50 PM

The gist is- you cannot kill a guy if all he is going to do is punch you in the nose- your life has to be actually threatened. Since we are a pretty conservative state I would figure other states are even more adamant about not shooting someone in such a situation.

I'm not a very big fellow however I posses extreme punching power in both hands. Absorbing a punch should not be an option for any one armed. You will not get a shot off.

Allowing someone to get close enough to hit you, who has announced intent to beat you, is a serious tactical error that will cost you at minimum a beating. Pulling on them to prevent this is tactically responsible. If they continue to advance it is much easier to articulate that you were in fear of death or grave bodily injury. Why else would a man advance on an armed person risking death if not to give such?

tomwalshco

February 1, 2011, 06:16 PM

So I guess you have to wait until your 9 yr old daughter or granddaughter gets it in the face, or maybe your 65 yr old wife or mother?

Puntmefar

February 1, 2011, 07:44 PM

well that depends on alot of things. 99.9% of the time its no you CAN NOT[B] draw or shoot over a fist fight. There is a few situations depending on the state you are in. For example Ky. where I live, gives you the right to use deadly force if you have reasonable fear you will be raped as long as the attacker has the means and you beleive they have the intent to do so. Also you have the right to use deadly force if you are in fear of being maimed or are at risk of serious personal injury eg...... beaten into a comma, loss of limb ect. There is no mention of the attacker having to be armed in those situations. However if its a fist fight and nothing more do you want to go to bed at night knowing you almost shot some one or worse you did shoot some one over a common brawl. And if you did draw what bed would you sleep in that night yours or the county jail's? I'd say learn to fight without a gun you can allways have the gun as a [B]LAST resort to protect your life not your pride.

Double Naught Spy

February 1, 2011, 08:18 PM

Absorbing a punch should not be an option for any one armed. You will not get a shot off.

Well gee, being punched should not be an option whether you are armed or not, LOL. About not getting a shot off, that is a mighty definitive statement. So what you are saying is that it isn't possible to be punched and then to be able to shoot a gun? Reality has this happening with considerable frequency compared to your statement that it won't happen.

This guy won a fist fight and was killed by the guy he defeated.
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-10-01/news/fl-murder-arrest-lauderdale-20100930_1_fist-fight-attacker-edison-austin

Here is an example of a guy who drew his gun after being beaten by a larger opponent and ended up in jail. He would have been able to shoot despite having been hit.
http://www.defendu.com/gun_fistfight.htm

BGutzman

February 1, 2011, 08:23 PM

A fight that does not endanger your life or result grevious bodily harm (depending on the laws of your state, county, etc.) would Not IMHO rise to the level where drawing your weapon would be legal.

Hopefully you or someone present would call law enforcement and the situation would come to a end without an altercation. If not hopefully you have some legal and less than lethal alternative. I stongly recommend against a physical confrontation while you are armed with a firearm because there is no guarntee that you are going to keep control of your weapon nor that the level of violence by the agressor wont rise to the level where the law may permit you do defend yourself legally.

These are just my thoughts but let me highly suggest you see a attorney for a "legally sound answer".

Lastly if I felt I was at some point going to be in this situation I would stop going to whatever place this might happen as there are too many place to go to have fun and who needs trouble on this level.

threegun

February 1, 2011, 08:36 PM

However if its a fist fight and nothing more do you want to go to bed at night knowing you almost shot some one or worse you did shoot some one over a common brawl.

A common brawl requires two willing parties. I don't want to brawl. I simply want to be left alone and unharmed. I have a right NOT to be beaten by someone. If someone attempts to force a brawl they will be told no thanks. Then they will be told the consequences should they attempt to initiate unwelcome harm. Then they will either comply or face said consequences.

I simply want to prevent injury to myself. Just because the bad guy refuses to comply doesn't mean I have to accept the beating.

TeamSinglestack

February 1, 2011, 08:47 PM

It is going to depend on both statute law and common (case) law in the jurisdiction.

This.

Some states justify the threat of deadly force in situations where force would be lawful to stop a threat, and should a threat ignore the warning and continue to be a threat, deadly force would be justified. Note that "force" and "deadly force" are recognized to be two completely different things.

These laws are written this way so that citizens can lawfully defend themselves from unarmed individuals they couldn't possibly physically overcome due to individual physical limitations / handicaps.

To think you are required to be threatened with a deadly weapon, or subject yourself to a potentially lethal beating, prior to lawfully using deadly force to defend yourself is simply ridiculous.

Your jurisdiction may vary, so know your laws....

JROCK

February 1, 2011, 08:48 PM

A lot of it comes down to how well you can articulate that you felt you were in serious danger. You can sometimes tell when a fight will just be a fight, but if you feel like this guy isn't looking to just beat you up and then walk away, you also have to consider that after he beats you down, he now has a gun. Who knows how he'll use that gun. In the end, it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6

threegun

February 1, 2011, 08:54 PM

Well gee, being punched should not be an option whether you are armed or not, LOL. About not getting a shot off, that is a mighty definitive statement. So what you are saying is that it isn't possible to be punched and then to be able to shoot a gun? Reality has this happening with considerable frequency compared to your statement that it won't happen.

If I have bad intentions for you and you allow me to get a clean punch on you I don't think you will be pulling and if you do I will be on top of you and not rocked.

You are correct however but my statement was meant in the sense that odds go way down for you with a bad guy on top of you and you are stunned. Pulling at this point could get you killed as easily as it saves you. In some case it will get you killed faster to pull.

Here in the shop I work we have tried getting our guns from waist carry while a coworker tried to take it. Most of the time the taker won. This is without the physical head trauma of a vicious punch.

Puntmefar

February 1, 2011, 08:56 PM

threegun Quote:
However if its a fist fight and nothing more do you want to go to bed at night knowing you almost shot some one or worse you did shoot some one over a common brawl.

A common brawl requires two willing parties. I don't want to brawl. I simply want to be left alone and unharmed. I have a right NOT to be beaten by someone. If someone attempts to force a brawl they will be told no thanks. Then they will be told the consequences should they attempt to initiate unwelcome harm. Then they will either comply or face said consequences.

I simply want to prevent injury to myself. Just because the bad guy refuses to comply doesn't mean I have to accept the beating.

I do agree with you however a fist fight dos not justify deadly force. I wouldnt pretend to expext any one to just take the beating. But I would hope we have the self controll and dicipline to handle it as a fist fight not a gun fight and in the end accept the fact you might be the one with the beating but not with out a fight. Our guns should be to protect our life we can not take the mind set of a school yard kid ...... who has the bigger stick. We have to accept some times in life we are on the loosing end of a fight and thats just life. Im not tryin to say you are acting like a child please dont misunderstand.

Dude is walking around his development with his family, three punks walk up, beats the father to death while the rest of the family escapes. No motive. This happened 10 minutes from my house in a state where you are not allowed to carry a concealed weapon. Something is wrong here.

If that gentleman had a CCW and was carrying, he would be alive today and his family would have a father to come home to at night. Instead, they can visit his grave.

JohnKSa

February 1, 2011, 09:24 PM

Ok, folks, let's try to stick to scenarios that are roughly comparable to what the OP describes.

A standoff where a single person won't let you leave because you won't fight is not remotely similar to being violently attacked by multiple persons.

X_shooter

February 1, 2011, 09:44 PM

B.N.Real had it right. Call 911 and prepare for the worst. You don't know their intentions. You don't know their capabilities. You don't know if you can take one punch, or three, or twenty before you start to black out and he takes your gun and finishes you off. There is no reset, no do over, no referee to determine that he is getting the upper hand and throws a flag to indicate now your life is in danger. You can't say I wish he would beat me more so I can shoot him and end this. You can't say if he hits me one more time I'm going to start getting serious.

This isn't best two out of three or a match of fisticuffs. This isn't a fist fight in the playground after school. You have no idea how far it can escalate and if you care about your own safety you need to defend yourself. It is crazy to tell someone to take a beating becuase its against the law to shoot someone to defend themself. Dead is dead. It doesn't matter if he gets a lucky shot with his fist, a bottle, a brick, a knife, a boot, or a club. Any of those can cause permanent damage and even death. If you guys are going to take your chances and see how much you can take, please put me in your will.

Iam2taz

February 2, 2011, 01:32 AM

+1 for dial 911.. When I picked up my gun, I put my ego down.

When I was taking martial arts years ago a little ole grandma hit me about 4 or 5 times and had me on the ground before I knew what the heck was going on. Now, at the time I was young and about 150 lbs and very full of my self. (I too had been in my share of altercations.) I came to a very quick conclusion as I got older / grew up. You just don't know. So don't fight unless it is the last option.

Plan A. - Walk, Run - Get away if at all possible. (Call police.)
Plan B. - Call the police and try to talk the idiot down.
Plan C. - Win at ALL COSTS.

I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six. JMHO.

Double Naught Spy

February 2, 2011, 02:52 AM

If I have bad intentions for you and you allow me to get a clean punch on you I don't think you will be pulling and if you do I will be on top of you and not rocked.

Now that would be stupid. Why would I allow you to get a clean punch on me or why would you let me get a clean punch on you?

Oh, maybe you would get in a clean punch when I attempted to call 911. :rolleyes:

I have a right NOT to be beaten by someone. ... Just because the bad guy refuses to comply doesn't mean I have to accept the beating.

While you have the right to not be beaten or to accept a beating, it doesn't mean that you can use lethal force, especially since you have self professed punch and grapple prowess.

I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six. JMHO.

Of late, I have gotten a kick out of the use of that statement. We like to use it as a justification for our actions that might be legal, borderline legal or illegal as we would rather be alive and potentially jailed rather than being killed. However when situations have occurred and are discussed here, there is considerable talk about how the shooter was a moron and acted stupidly outside of the law when the shootings are questionable.

jughead2

February 2, 2011, 05:50 AM

as someone said dont remember where dont mess with an old man he cant run ,he cant fight chances are he will just shoot you. 73 here and always armed where legal.:eek:

pgdion

February 2, 2011, 01:21 PM

Yea, it's a little disappointing how much the law protects the bad guys and criminals to the extent of even persecuting the victims. I'm amazed sometimes at why we care so much about the life and well being of some of these low lifes. You're watching a low life drive away with your car (cause you can't shoot him) and he isn't even a car thief ... you're watching him steal your car and yet he is only an alleged car thief because he hasn't been convicted yet.

On the up side though, I think MN has some of the best gun laws in the country. Easy for a good citizen to buy whatever they want, a few extra road blocks to stop the criminals. You need a permit to purchase a handgun. Easy to get if your clean (and it's free), but it blocks quite a number of sales each year that would have gone through on the Fed check.

threegun

February 2, 2011, 08:25 PM

I do agree with you however a fist fight dos not justify deadly force. I wouldn't pretend to expect any one to just take the beating. But I would hope we have the self controll and dicipline to handle it as a fist fight not a gun fight and in the end accept the fact you might be the one with the beating but not with out a fight. Our guns should be to protect our life we can not take the mind set of a school yard kid ...... who has the bigger stick. We have to accept some times in life we are on the loosing end of a fight and thats just life. Im not tryin to say you are acting like a child please dont misunderstand.

This isn't a school yard. Grown men have the power to really hurt you. Some are younger and stronger. Some better trained. Some simply more violent. I have decided that I no longer wish to fight with fists for the above mentioned reasons. I will however do everything humanly possible to avoid confrontation including retreating or apologizing (even if not wrong).

That said nobody is going to beat me up. Hopefully all the avoidance will continue to defuse the rare occasions. If they fail hopefully the sight of my firearm will end the confrontation. If all else has failed.....I will not be beaten.

I hope this clarifies.

As a side note I don't think you give the gravity of just how viciously you can be beaten in a "fist fight". I hope you never find out.

threegun

February 2, 2011, 08:50 PM

While you have the right to not be beaten or to accept a beating, it doesn't mean that you can use lethal force, especially since you have self professed punch and grapple prowess.

You can use lethal force to prevent death or grave bodily injury.

I can handle myself pretty well. Punching power and ground skills does not a fighter make. I have a 30 second window on the ground before I get tired (really tired like bring some O2). I've got 10-15 full power combinations before my chest goes up in flames.

I would have a better chance than most and I still feel that it is a bad idea to fist fight. It is ignorant to do so IMO.

Now that would be stupid. Why would I allow you to get a clean punch on me or why would you let me get a clean punch on you?

Oh, maybe you would get in a clean punch when I attempted to call 911.

It was a what if. You have chosen to fight expect to get hit. If I am better or get lucky you are beat. Fights occur at contact distances.....easy to get hit close up last I checked.

My point was by the time you realize you are loosing its likely to late to deploy your weapon. Now you are beaten at at mercy.

Rufus T Firefly

February 2, 2011, 11:21 PM

Martial Arts training? Ah, no..... Unless you practice constantly Martial Arts training will most likely get you hurt and hurt bad. I have seen little kids with Black Belts. It really depends on your instructor. Luckily, the instructor I had years back spent time on the Kata's and such, (very pretty, like figure skating competition) and spent an equal amount of time on just plain "Street Fight". He had been a body guard for Diana Ross... etc and knew that threats where not defended by some fancy moves. The karate moves are great since they are a trained response and help. I just can't help but tell others when someone says.... "One good ______. Fill in the blank and hes down. Sorry. You may miss, you may get a partial hit and then really **** him off. I was trained. The last altercation I had I managed to incapacitate someone but still took a hit to a tooth that had to be extraced and replaced at some cost. No one "wins" a fight. Especially with one, kick, punch, etc. Mostly BS from the people that want to sign you up.

Microgunner

February 3, 2011, 12:46 PM

Hey, I walk with crutches. I'm not, no way on God's green earth, going to allow anyone to get that first punch in on me prior to drawing my weapon if I can help it. I'd be on the ground and helpless. I will, and have, shout "I'm armed, stay back". If they proceed I will, and have, show my weapon. If they still proceed i will, and have, point my weapon. If they still proceed I will shoot. No ifs ands or buts. I made these decissions long ago and feel completely justified in this response.

thesheepdog

February 3, 2011, 01:00 PM

But the BG has you trapped with no escape. The BG has no weapons except fists. Can you draw and shoot if the BG won’t move out of your way so you can leave or do you have to fight?

You can't legally shoot the BG, since your life isn't in immediate danger. If the BG moved closer towards you with a weapon or clinched fists, then that is when you scream at the top of your lungs "STOP OR I WILL SHOOT!!!"...if the BG doesn't heed the command to stop, then you have legal rights to shoot him/her.

If it was me and the BG just trapped me into an ally and wasn't really making a move, I would either call the COPS or try to find an exit.

If I was unarmed-which I am at times-I would whip out some Krav Maga on the thug in the event I felt my life was in immediate danger.

AcridSaint

February 3, 2011, 02:00 PM

When we use lethal force we are taking a risk of ruining our lives, meaning that the result of not using lethal force should be equal to or worse than the death penalty, a prison sentence or a drawn out legal battle that could leave you jobless and broke. If you have time to ask yourself "is this legal?", then you probably are in a no-shoot situation.

MrDontPlay

February 3, 2011, 02:18 PM

If it appears to be an even match, and there's no way out, just fight the guy. A good fight every once in a while is good for the soul. I would be nervous about fighting with a gun on me though, because they could grab the gun, or it could get scratched. If I feel like someone is going to kill me, they are getting shot, I'll worry about the law after I worry about my life. The question was a little vague, there are way to many varibles that could come into play.

ipscchef

February 3, 2011, 02:22 PM

I am 53 years old and disabled. I stand 5'10" and about 190.(Should be about 175:o) In my earlier days, I could give a fair account of myself in a fight. Not so anymore. I have two sons, Hal is 6'2" and 325lbs, Aaron is 6'6" and 275, either one of them could easily kill a man with one blow.They are both incredibly strong, even given their size.This is something to consider, if you were attacked by a person that was like one of my sons, they would not need a weapon to end a life. They are both good men,and have never harmed nor will ever harm an innocent person, but niether one has ever come close to losing a fight, and as I have taught them, you have a right to exist as long as you are being lawful. I will retreat from any altercation if it is possible, but most days, just walking is hard, there is no such thing as running for me anymore. I have been attacked in the past and have gotten out of harms way without having to actualy fire a gun.If someone the size of one of my Sons came at me, and I could not flee, I will shoot them, I HAVE A RIGHT TO EXIST. If I am jailed for doing what I think is right, so be it. Of course, If the boys are with me,well:D:D, I'll just stand back and let nature and my boys take their course!!And yes, I am a proud papa:)!
As always JMHO and YMMV
Willy

MLeake

February 3, 2011, 02:54 PM

... outside of road rage incidents at traffic jams...

... that a single person started a fair fist-fight.

The norm has been multiple attackers gang up on some victim. A few years ago, the rage in central Florida was "curbing." That was where, after the victim was knocked senseless, the attackers would open his jaws, and place them to either side of the edge of a curb, and then kick the victim in the back of the head, breaking jaws and shattering teeth.

Of course, there were the guys on I-4 near Daytona a couple years ago who challenged a guy to a fight, then decided to shoot him instead.

Or the guy who willingly got into a fist-fight in Orlando, but then when he was hit he fell and hit his head on a car's bumper. Killed him.

So, while the OP's scenario falls into a grey area, it's also not a very likely one.

Now, it does raise a question: Say, instead of wanting to fight, the BG is attempting a strong-arm robbery?

In Florida or Georgia, pretty sure that would actually qualify for use of the firearm in SD. (Specified forcible felonies.)

So, the next question is: what is the difference? (Morally, if not legally.)

threegun

February 3, 2011, 03:26 PM

Hey, I walk with crutches. I'm not, no way on God's green earth, going to allow anyone to get that first punch in on me prior to drawing my weapon if I can help it. I'd be on the ground and helpless. I will, and have, shout "I'm armed, stay back". If they proceed I will, and have, show my weapon. If they still proceed i will, and have, point my weapon. If they still proceed I will shoot. No ifs ands or buts. I made these decissions long ago and feel completely justified in this response.

Well said and my point exactly. This is the sequence I "will and have" used up to the pointing my weapon stage.

I believe you "will and have" been deemed justified on a couple occassions by law enforcement. Isn't that correct Micro?

Microgunner

February 3, 2011, 03:48 PM

I believe you "will and have" been deemed justified on a couple occassions by law enforcement. Isn't that correct Micro?

You are correct threegun.

Nowhere in the US or Florida constitutions am I required to take a beating prior to defending myself.

Anyone who believes he should just duke it out with a felon, and anyone attacking you IS a felon, is just a fool destined for the cemetery.

ipscchef

February 3, 2011, 03:59 PM

I am with MLeake on this. When was the last time you heard about a "Fair Fight"? This concept dissapeared many years ago, in my estimation. Gone are the days when you would duke it out and call it settled. We live in a much, much more violent time.
And as I stated previously, I have a right to exist. My father was from Daingerfield, Texas, he believed that it was ones duty to shoot wrongdoers, as they would most certainly harm another person if you did not. If you let him go and he harmed another, you would share blame.
Just what Dad thought, pretty interesting concept, actualy.
Willy
Off topic, But I just got HughesNet high speed yesterday(YEAA):D, but I find that I have to retype about a third of my words:confused:

brickeyee

February 3, 2011, 04:39 PM

Nowhere in the US or Florida constitutions am I required to take a beating prior to defending myself.

And nowhere does it say you can use lethal force.

Lethal force can normally only be used in response to force that can cause death or grave injury.

Fists have been around a long time.

Some states have case law that firmly cones down on the side of fists NOT being presumed lethal force.
Responding with lethal force to the threat of fists would put you in a very ba position at trial.

Microgunner

February 3, 2011, 05:04 PM

Some states have case law that firmly cones down on the side of fists NOT being presumed lethal force.
Responding with lethal force to the threat of fists would put you in a very ba position at trial.

Not Florida.

And since a blow with a fist can, and has caused many, many deaths, the US constitution guarentees my RIGHT to life.

Lethal force can normally only be used in response to force that can cause death or grave injury.

Fists have been around a long time.

So have clubs, so by your reasoning they're not lethal?

And graveyards are full of folks beaten to death with fists.

Microgunner

February 3, 2011, 05:10 PM

Look at it another way. Not knowing if the thug who wishes to attack me with his fists will stop at simply beating me unconscience, why should I allow myself to be at his complete mercy. Doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

ipscchef

February 3, 2011, 09:22 PM

Well said Microgunner, as I said earlier, if someone like my Sons Hal and Aaron tried to give me, or most people, a beat down, death could certainly be a reasonable outcome. My son Aaron, who has been discharged from the Navy, He was on the JFK, a hatch came down on his head during Desert Storm, and has caused him grevious mental issues, was in an altercation in Md. four years ago where they first wanted to charge him with attempted Murder in the first, for the damage to a man who attacked him. He made a bad mess of this fellow, who will never recover completely.Again, as I stated earlier, no matter who you are, when you see Hal or Aaron, you know you are looking at two BIG MEN. This is nothing that I or Aaron are proud of. And the charges were eventualy dismissed.The man did attack Aaron without provocation. I only state this to show what one can do to another with only "His Fists". Sugar Ray Leanard used to come in to my restaurant in the eighties, he is not a big man, but just think of what would happen if he "got a mad on" at your average person. Dead, and dead quick. BTW, you will never meet a nicer more down to earth person than Sugar Ray.
You have no idea of how your attacker will hurt you.
If you are sent to prison, that means you are still alive.. That is my opinion.
YOU AND I HAVE A RIGHT TO EXIST.
Willy

Cruncher Block

February 3, 2011, 09:33 PM

Pepper spray.

Southern Rebel

February 3, 2011, 09:54 PM

Ah, the advantages of old age - no jury expects us old guys to be able to run and neither do they expect us to be able to engage in a fair fist fight. Therefore, I feel entitled to use whatever force I have available to avoid blunt force trauma to an old body. :D

I get amused with all the posts saying "you can't use deadly force" in the given circumstance. Don't be ridiculous - trust me, I CAN because I have armed myself and practiced to be able to do just that. Now, you can tell me that you and/or the law think I SHOULDN'T. (Kinda like playing "may I" versus "can I".)

Even if I were a young, muscular stud, I would require certain steps to insure the so-called "fair fist fight" was really gonna be just that. I would want the other guy searched for weapons, I would want a detailed investigative search of his background to insure his level of training was not significantly better than mine in hand-to-hand combat, and finally I would want one of those referees from the TV "legalized beat-em shows" to insure that we were separated when a winner had been determined. Anything less than the above is just playing Russian Roulette in the area I live. I don't recall seeing any fair fist fights even when I was in high school - just keep beating and kicking the other guy until someone finally pulled you off of him.

Golfin Gator

February 4, 2011, 06:07 AM

That's why I always have someone with me. I don't have to outrun the bad guy, just the person I'm with.

bighead46

February 4, 2011, 01:06 PM

When I spoke about the "punch in the nose" doctrine- I wasn't speaking about what is right or wrong. IMHO if some guy punches you in the nose- all is fair- shoot the SOB ...BUT...when I got my Florida concealed weapons permit the instructions gave some guidelines on when you can or cannot shoot. I forget some of the details but one example in the instructions was about a guy at a gas station who gets into an argument with someone else. The guy retreats to his car and the other guy comes over- goes into the car and starts hitting the guy. The victum shoots the attacker. Off hand I would think your car is your "Home" so you would be justified but the law convicted the guy and sent him to jail on the argument his life wasn't threatened. On the other hand Florida is sort of unique as far as home intruders are concerned- as I understand it you can shoot them and no explanation is needed- if they are illegally in your home- that's enough.
On the streets I think I remember part of the instructions inwhich someone was going to be accosted and fleeing the area but the attackers pursued him and he could not get away and so he shot and was justified.
Really confusing to me.

OldMarksman

February 4, 2011, 02:28 PM

Posted by Microgunner: And since a blow with a fist can, and has caused many, many deaths, the US constitution guarentees my RIGHT to life.Second part does not follow from the first. However, the Constitution simply prohibits the Government from taking a person's life against action taken without due process.

SCOTUS has characterized the right to defend one's llfe as a natural right.

The simple fact that people have been killed by blows from fists does not justify the use of deadly force to prevent oneself from being stuck. There must be a basis for a reasonable belief that the danger of death or serious injury is imminent and that deadly fore is immediately necessary--that is, that there is no other alternative.

Read Post #22 one more time, and study the attached article. The shooter did everything possible to avoid the use of deadly force when being attacked by more than one person with fists. He ultimately had no other choice but to shoot. He was in jail for quite a while and was tried twice.

That happened in gun friendly Arizona.

"Not Florida? This is from the website of the FL Division of Licensing:

2. The amount of force that you use to defend yourself must not be excessive under the circumstances.

Never use deadly force in self-defense unless you are afraid that if you don't, you will be killed or seriously injured;
Verbal threats never justify your use of deadly force;
If you think someone has a weapon and will use it unless you kill him, be sure you are right and are not overreacting to the situation.

Regarding the possibility of justifying the use of deadly force in a defense against fists, a lot will likely hinge on the comparative strength and health of the individuals involved.

FoxtrotRomeo

February 4, 2011, 03:26 PM

Yes verbal threat does not allow you to use deadly force. If a person wishes for a slug out session mano e mano, that does not allow deadly force either.

But it is more clear when a weapon or potential weapon is involved (A baseball bat does not become a weapon until it is swung with the intent to injure or kill.)

When a more clear weapon is involved (anger is present when dealing with a person and you see him attempt to pull a weapon for use.) The presentation as far as I'm concerned of a deadly weapon is authorized (I've had this conversation with my carry permit instructor). Presentation does not mean that the action of the use of deadly force is authorized. That needs to be clear. Now to someone willing to make it political it would so be careful and think before you present it.

Now if he or she persists and their action indicate that they wish to put your life and/or limb in jeopardy. Then according to the laws of the state of Tennessee, deadly force is now authorized.

Now in some states, that's not the case. So check the state laws before you get there.

So if you examine yourself in this state and you really do have a really good reason why fear is coursing through every vein and artery in your body and you have no other options, you can use deadly force.

threegun

February 4, 2011, 03:29 PM

Read Post #22 one more time, and study the attached article. The shooter did everything possible to avoid the use of deadly force when being attacked by more than one person with fists. He ultimately had no other choice but to shoot. He was in jail for quite a while and was tried twice.

Had the above person not opened fire he might possibly be dead or grievously injury.........kinda sounds like what is necessary to shoot doesn't it. Sounds like he got a bum deal and a pretty isolated case.

BTW Microgunner explained that shooting was as a last resort in post #59.

I will, and have, shout "I'm armed, stay back". If they proceed I will, and have, show my weapon. If they still proceed i will, and have, point my weapon. If they still proceed I will shoot.

_________________________________________________________________

The simple fact that people have been killed by blows from fists does not justify the use of deadly force to prevent oneself from being stuck. There must be a basis for a reasonable belief that the danger of death or serious injury is imminent and that deadly fore is immediately necessary--that is, that there is no other alternative.

At the point (using microgunners tactics) that the bad guy attempts to attack despite the firearm in my hand, it is much easier to defend our position legally. Several levels of warning to avoid having to shoot already ignored.

threegun

February 4, 2011, 04:20 PM

Yes verbal threat does not allow you to use deadly force. If a person wishes for a slug out session mano e mano, that does not allow deadly force either.

I think some of you guys are ignorant as to just how badly you can be beaten simply with fists. Perhaps you just haven't thought the issue through thoroughly. Maybe you guys believe a fist fight will be like the one you had in grade school.

My breakdown of why it is not physically responsible to engage in a fist fight.

1. You can be killed. As in dead not a bloody nose or fat lip. Just as the nose and lip are a possibility so is death.

2. You can be gravely injured. As in permanent brain injury or other not a broken rib or cracked tooth. While the rib and tooth are possible so it permanent brain injury.

The fact is you are literally putting your life into the hands of your attacker by engaging in a fist fight.

My breakdown of why it is not tactically responsible to fist fight.

Leaving your gun holstered while becoming engaged in hand to hand virtually insures a difficult or impossible deployment should your opponent decide to beat you to death. At a minimum you risk having it taken from you.

Dragline45

February 4, 2011, 04:26 PM

Growing up in a big city ill throw in my 2 cents.

Like everyone else said it depends on the situation. Judging by some peoples responses they have never been attacked or in a fight. People take for granted how much damage a fist can do, let alone knees, elbows, and feet, and like some people said these days there is no such thing as a fair fight anymore. Too often people go to far and I personally know a few people who needed major facial surgery after fights. If you tried to flee, your cornered without an escape route, you most certainly have the right to draw a firearm in self defense. At that point its his decision to back down.

I belive these types of cases will be judged on an individual basis so no answer is a fits all response. Just be careful, try to AVOID any form of confrontation. A smile and a wave does wonders for many folks.

blueridgerunner

February 4, 2011, 04:31 PM

A couple of weeks ago, a young man was beaten and robbed by four thugs, the oldest was 16. The whole thing was caught on a security camera. When the victim got out of the hospital he had, among other things lost an eye. I am 65 years old. Back in the day I was a heck of a lot better prepared to defend myself than I am now. Most BGs my age or older aren't up to an altercation anymore either. I made it through 20 years as a cop without ever firing a shot at another human being. But I was, as now, prepared to do it if I had to. I refuse to be a victim.

Microgunner

February 4, 2011, 04:49 PM

"Not Florida? This is from the website of the FL Division of Licensing:

Quote:
2. The amount of force that you use to defend yourself must not be excessive under the circumstances.

Never use deadly force in self-defense unless you are afraid that if you don't, you will be killed or seriously injured;
Verbal threats never justify your use of deadly force;
If you think someone has a weapon and will use it unless you kill him, be sure you are right and are not overreacting to the situation.

This is from Florida Statute 776.013:

3)A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

So, the rub is in defining justifiable use of deadly force. Me? I'm old and crippled. I don't think I'd have any problems meeting this criteria.

Microgunner

February 4, 2011, 04:57 PM

Another point of contention. Say I decide it's best to defend this physical attack with my fists and things and going badly for me, very badly. At what point do I decide it's life or death? And at that point will I be conscience enough to now draw and fire safely? No, I'll not give them the chance to greiviously injure me prior to drawing my weapon. Anything less is simply lawyer speak.

M.O.A.

February 4, 2011, 05:13 PM

that would be at the point the big guy grabs something like a pipe or two bye or something like that
be cause if two people have been fighting and one has the tim to draw a gun the othere guy is most likey trying to find something to end the fight as well
and this is comeing from a big guy that has done a little street fighting mostly because i am big and alot of peoplelike to see how big they are by fighting the biggest gu they can find
with me i say draw look the guy over good if weapon is seen put him down !

OldMarksman

February 4, 2011, 05:30 PM

Posted by threegun: Had the above person not opened fire he might possibly be dead or grievously injury.........kinda sounds like what is necessary to shoot doesn't it. Yes, and that's what the court ultimately decided.

Sounds like he got a bum deal and a pretty isolated case.Self defense shootings are rare, and not all shooters are charged, and not all of those who are go to trial. High among the guy's problems is the fact that the attackers were unarmed, even though he was outnumbered.

I think some of you guys are ignorant as to just how badly you can be beaten simply with fists. Perhaps you just haven't thought the issue through thoroughly. Maybe you guys believe a fist fight will be like the one you had in grade school.No, not at all. I would avoid a fist fight every way that I can. The question at hand, I think, is whether I would be justified in shooting.

Maybe, maybe not. If I did shoot, my first problem would be producing evidence to the effect that I reasonably believed that (1) I was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm; (2) that I had no other choice; and (3) that I did not use excessive force in employing a deadly weapon against an unarmed man.

Then, if the stars and moon lined up and if the state did not present strong contradictory evidence, the jury would receive an instruction allowing them to consider whether my action constituted justifiable self defense.

My breakdown of why it is not physically responsible to engage in a fist fight.

1. You can be killed. As in dead not a bloody nose or fat lip. Just as the nose and lip are a possibility so is death.

2. You can be gravely injured. As in permanent brain injury or other not a broken rib or cracked tooth. While the rib and tooth are possible so it permanent brain injury.No, it is not responsible to engage in a fight.

First, it is dangerous.

Secondly, as had been said before, willfully engaging in mutual combat is likely to weaken a defense of justification.

Thirdly, "can be" is unlikely to suffice in a defense of justification. The question that the charging authority, grand jury (if there is one), and/or trial jury would have to address is whether a reasonable person, knowing what the suspect or defendant knew at the time, reasonably believed that he would likely have been killed or seriously injured, had he not used deadly force.

I'm over sixty five and suffer from various joint and tendon issues. and I might be able to get by, possibly at very great expense, but I would much rather take my chances with the use of a Kimber Pepperblaster. The actor in the OP's scenario has a much greater problem: no disparity of force. In addition to the fact that the other person is not armed, that's a formula for disaster if he resorts to the use of a weapon.

The fact is you are literally putting your life into the hands of your attacker by engaging in a fist fight.A very good reason to not do it.

I really would not want to be the one to test a "stand your ground" law by relying on a contention that such a law eliminates any duty to avoid or evade and gives one the justification to employ deadly force against an unarmed man who wants to fight. The process would take years, cost a fortune, and end up with some case law referenced as the appellate court ruling in "[my name] vs. [name of the state], with an end result probably not at all to my liking.

FoxtrotRomeo

February 4, 2011, 05:49 PM

I think some of you guys are ignorant as to just how badly you can be beaten simply with fists.

Keep it in context. I said if a person wishes for a slug out session mano e mano..

A person does not suggest, me, or you. A person suggests the likelihood of another individual being the instigator or enabler for such a skermish to take place.

I value the other person as well as myself enough to attempt to walk away.

As far as brain injury though, I'm not Ali fighting Frazier and then after that of all people, Foreman (In his most psychologically angry state in George's life I might add. George talked about that part of his life, he needed peace in his life). Attempting to walk away provides myself in view of others with the idea of being the victor for having enough respect for myself and others to walk away with no one harmed. Should the situation further escalate, it will have clearily been not as the result of my actions.

My job in all of this is to not only do what is right, but to makes sure that my case is as clear as possible that I had no other alternative left.

Again. Don't try to use it as a fuel for an an argument, read it in the context that it was meant to be read in.

Irreguardless of what we say here and now, We all can agree that before you pull the trigger, keep a cool and responsible head on your shoulders.

Ruark

February 4, 2011, 06:32 PM

"verbal threat does not allow you to use deadly force."

A couple of ideas:

1. Granted, if somebody just trash talks you, you can't pull out a weapon and blow his head off. We're assuming a situation where the opponent will not stop verbal aggression. Say he's blocking your exit and daring you to fight him ("come'on, <<deleted>>, come'on"). Maybe that wouldn't justify deadly force, but would it justify displaying or brandishing? Of course, the implication there is that you WILL use deadly force if he continues. So if he continues after you brandish, are you THEN justified?

2. It's pretty well accepted that "shooting to wound" is not advisable in self-defense situations, for a variety of good reasons I won't go into here. But in a case like we're discussing, is there a place for it? It seems logical on the surface. He wasn't armed, and you went through a series of steps in giving him an opportunity to quit. And you might justify shooting to wound as using the MINIMUM amount of force necessary to stop him. Not many would continue this behavior after getting a .357HP through the knee or foot. "But your honor, it wasn't NECESSARY to kill him..." Comments?

threegun

February 4, 2011, 06:34 PM

High among the guy's problems is the fact that the attackers were unarmed, even though he was outnumbered.

I have a hard time believing that there isn't more to this case than we are aware of. Multiple attackers even unarmed is without a doubt a justifiable use of force should they attack you.

threegun

February 4, 2011, 06:38 PM

2. It's pretty well accepted that "shooting to wound" is not advisable in self-defense situations, for a variety of good reasons I won't go into here. But in a case like we're discussing, is there a place for it? It seems logical on the surface. He wasn't armed, and you went through a series of steps in giving him an opportunity to quit. And you might justify shooting to wound as using the MINIMUM amount of force necessary to stop him. Not many would continue this behavior after getting a .357HP through the knee or foot. "But your honor, it wasn't NECESSARY to kill him..." Comments?

If the gun goes bang its because your life is in jeopardy. Shoot to end the threat not to kill or wound.

FoxtrotRomeo

February 5, 2011, 01:08 AM

Maybe that wouldn't justify deadly force, but would it justify displaying or brandishing?

The answer is NO. You must be able to make out the possibility for him/her to be reaching for a weapon. Period.

He blocks your exit, he blocks your exit. It does not mean you still can not deal with the situation. Let him/her look like an ass if that's what they want. You must remain in control of yourself at all times. If you get out of control, you're on the edge of doing something stupid and that's not good, ever.

Auto426

February 5, 2011, 03:30 AM

George Shaw wrote: "That is the whole secret of successful fighting. Get your enemy at a disadvantage; and never, on any account, fight him on equal terms."

If you have a gun and someone is trying to engage you in fist fight, even if they are unarmed, use your gun to your advantage.

Just because you pull your gun doesn't mean you have to fire it. The mere sight of a gun can drastically change some peoples minds. The BG may think he can beat you up, but he knows hes not bullet-proof. Chances are high that he will back off and high tail it out of there. If he continues his assault, then go ahead and shoot him.

M.O.A.

February 5, 2011, 03:46 AM

what about a warning shot any one heard of that

stephen426

February 5, 2011, 04:23 AM

I think the important thing is to clearly demonstrate that you are not a willing participant and that you are trying to avoid an altercation. The first thing I would do is try and attract attention of those around me. Hopefully potential witnesses will attest to the fact that the other guy was the aggressor and I was trying to avoid an altercation. Maybe somebody will get in the middle and try to prevent the fight. I believe it is fool hardy at best to judge your opponent's ability just by looking at him.

Try to leave if at all possible, but do not leave yourself vulnerable to getting sucker punched since this will likely do much more damage than if you are expecting the blow. I took martial arts back in the day but I am out of practice. There are a few shots that can typically end a fight fairly quickly. Typically a shot to the groin or wind pipe takes the fight out of most people. Hit him hard and leave. While these are cheap shots, why risk getting into a fight with someone who may be far more adept than you? As many have mentioned, there is no such thing as a fair fight these days.

JohnKSa

February 5, 2011, 06:19 AM

what about a warning shot any one heard of thatIt's not clear that it would even be legal to draw a firearm in the standoff situation described by the OP. It's even less likely to be legal to fire it in warning.

threegun

February 5, 2011, 08:10 AM

The answer is NO. You must be able to make out the possibility for him/her to be reaching for a weapon. Period.

Wrong. Microgunner drew, pointed, and warned the unarmed bad guy beating on his vehicles window that if the glass broke he would fire. Cops were called and his action were deemed lawful.

OldMarksman

February 5, 2011, 10:47 AM

Posted by threegun: ["You must be able to make out the possibility for him/her to be reaching for a weapon"] [is] Wrong. Microgunner drew, pointed, and warned the unarmed bad guy beating on his vehicles window that if the glass broke he would fire. Cops were called and his action were deemed lawful.It could deemed to be wrong, but it probably would not be so judged; in any event, the scenario posed by the OP does not involve someone who is in the process of forcibly and unlawfully breaking into an occupied automobile in Florida. That is an entirely different situation.

MLeake

February 5, 2011, 02:17 PM

Not trying to single you out, OM, but you're generally a sensible and reasonable type, so I would particularly like your opinion. I wouldn't mind other opinions, too.

If we change the scenario slightly, and the BG is now an unarmed, strong-arm robber, instead of some yahoo wanting a brawl, what would your answers be?

JohnKSa

February 5, 2011, 02:53 PM

Wrong. Microgunner drew, pointed, and warned the unarmed bad guy beating on his vehicles window that if the glass broke he would fire. Cops were called and his action were deemed lawful.That would probably be legal in TX (I haven't checked it out thoroughly), but probably not in many other places. The analogy is very poor for this thread, however. A better analogy for the OPs post would be someone THREATENING to hit the window, not someone who's already in the progress of trying to break it.

TX law is quite clear that a verbal provocation alone is not grounds for use of force (pulling a gun and displaying it) or deadly force (shooting at the attacker).

OldMarksman

February 6, 2011, 12:26 PM

If we change the scenario slightly, and the BG is now an unarmed, strong-arm robber, instead of some yahoo wanting a brawl, what would your answers be?Sill no disparity of force?

Where I live, or in any place that does not allow for the defensive display of a weapon or its Texas equivalent, I would toss him my wallet.

In Texas, I might well grab my gun and try to be persuasive.

Aguila Blanca

February 6, 2011, 01:22 PM

Some states have case law that firmly cones down on the side of fists NOT being presumed lethal force.
Please provide some citations.

The laws of just about every state provide that the use of deadly force in defense of yourself or a third party is justified if the actor (that's you) has a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury.

Anyone who claims that fists cannot cause serious bodily injury, and even death, simply hasn't been reading the newspapers. The law does not require that fists be defined as lethal force. The law requires only that you have a reasonable fear of being seriously injured by the assailant.

With that established, the scenario set out in the original question is deliberately constructed to make answering it as difficult as possible ... which is why my first response was, "It depends." The OP has stated that both assailant and victim are roughly equal in size and age. [No more discussions about why geriatric paraplegics can use guns when the rest of us can't.] The OP has stated that there is no exit. [No more suggestions to "Exit stage left."] It doesn't matter where the scene is set -- the parameter is that the only way out is through the bad guy, and he says you can't leave unless you fight him. And you don't want to fight.

NOW what do you do?

Personally, if I have a cell phone with a signal, I'm calling 9-1-1. If that results in the bad guy initiating an attack (or an approach signaling an attack), I'm going to shoot him. The law does NOT require that I submit to being assaulted before I am allowed to defend myself.

threegun

February 6, 2011, 01:44 PM

That would probably be legal in TX (I haven't checked it out thoroughly), but probably not in many other places. The analogy is very poor for this thread, however. A better analogy for the OPs post would be someone THREATENING to hit the window, not someone who's already in the progress of trying to break it.

No I think it is a pretty good example. The bad guy in Microgunners case was ticked off that MG was waiting for a handicap parking space (the lady backing up was rather slow). This traffic blocking upset the driver behind him. He simply wanted to fight with Microgunner. Now MG warned him that if the glass shattered he would fire however he wasn't necessarily trying to break the glass or into the vehicle.

So we have an unarmed bad guy wanting to fight and a good guy not wanting to fight. The way out is blocked. Seems the same.

OldMarksman

February 6, 2011, 01:51 PM

Posted by Aguila Blanca: The laws of just about every state provide that the use of deadly force in defense of yourself or a third party is justified if the actor (that's you) has a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury.A reasonable belief and a reasonable belief that you have no other choice.

Problem is, someone else (the charging authority, perhaps a grand jury, and maybe a trial jury) will determine whether that belief was in fact reasonable.

In cases in which deadly force has been used against someone who was not armed, defendants have sometimes been able to prevail in a defense of justification if they were able to demonstrate a basis for a reasonable belief that the person had been armed, or if they could successfully show that there was a considerable disparity of force.

Absent both, they are likely in a great deal of trouble, with little chance of prevailing.

Study the story linked in Post #22 for an example of where a defendant was tried twice, and prevailed only because of a disparity of force and the element of necessity that were demonstrated not only by the fact that he was outnumbered, but by the fact that he was in fact being overcome and possesses a gun that would have been taken and used against him and his wife.

Tyrant

February 6, 2011, 01:59 PM

I had my share of fights growing up in school just like the next guy. Now as an adult I do not fight. Fighting is something children do growing up.
My take is defend yourself by whatever means is necessary to end the attack because the attacker ALWAYS wishes to harm you.

I would try to let the attacker know that I am armed, do not desire a confrontation, and do not approach me. If the attacker stopped, I would leave and immediately let the local PD know what had transpired.

OldMarksman

February 6, 2011, 02:14 PM

Posted by threegun: The bad guy in Microgunners case was ticked off that MG was waiting for a handicap parking space (the lady backing up was rather slow). This traffic blocking upset the driver behind him. He simply wanted to fight with Microgunner. Now MG warned him that if the glass shattered he would fire however he wasn't necessarily trying to break the glass or into the vehicle.Ah, now I remember that very long discussion from 2009. A guy pounded on the window, and the guy in the car pointed a gun at him.

The window did not break. Someone in the thread pointed out that fists do not break windshields or back windows.

The guy in the car was not arrested, but another LEO commented that he would have arrested both of them. Putting the story on the web could have gotten the guy in the car and the cop in a lot of trouble.

So we have an unarmed bad guy wanting to fight and a good guy not wanting to fight. The way out is blocked. Seems the sameNo, not at all. In the case at hand here, no one is pounding on anything.

And, of course, if one of them points a gun when there is no imminent threat of death or serious injury, you now have two bad guys, if anyone wants to press the issue.

Now, had that window actually been broken, Florida's castle law may have kicked in. Not here.

bighead46

February 6, 2011, 03:38 PM

Not to keep beating a dead horse......
I agree fists can be deadly. What I was trying to point out is what you are legally up against if you decide to shoot,
Thugs in a courtroom become "youths", often disadvantaged youths. Prior crimminal records can't be brought in.
If you had ANY chance to run and you didn't- you are "trigger happy"
If you used anything other than a round nose plated bullet- you were toting a gun with "cop killer" bullets.
All I am saying is this- you are going to be in for the trouble of your life- you will probably have wished a hundred times over you had run instead of fighting it out. This is especially true if the situation wasn't that bad but you got into a yelling match that escalated to violence- you were an active participant to that escalation.
I carry a revolver instead of a semi-auto. I know you are supposed to report all shootings but if you don't leave a bunch of shell cases around with your finger prints on them- and if you had to shoot- I myself couldn't blame an innocent person if they just took off.

OldMarksman

February 6, 2011, 05:14 PM

Posted by bighead 46: I know you are supposed to report all shootings but if you don't leave a bunch of shell cases around with your finger prints on them- and if you had to shoot- I myself couldn't blame an innocent person if they just took off.Do you think that the shooting would not be investigated? Do think that the likelihood that the shooter would not be found is greater than remote? And just how do you think the shooter would fare in the legal process, even if he had believed the shooting to have been justified, if he had not reported the shooing and had taken off?

And by the way, you do leave bullets around, with the identifying marks from your revolver on them, along with touch DNA, fibers, etc.

I understand not blaming him, but I think he would have cooked his own goose.

threegun

February 6, 2011, 06:35 PM

The guy in the car was not arrested, but another LEO commented that he would have arrested both of them. Putting the story on the web could have gotten the guy in the car and the cop in a lot of trouble.

Microgunner disagreed with you. He was able to articulate to the officer that he gave no provocation or escalation. He couldn't escape either. He's handicapped to boot. He was in fear of death or grave bodily injury. The officer agreed.

In the same scenario the only thing I would have done differently is pointing the gun. I would not have pointed the gun. I would have prepared to shoot, exposing the gun and verbally warned of my intentions should the glass break.

OldMarksman

February 6, 2011, 08:12 PM

Posted by threegun: Microgunner disagreed with you. He was able to articulate to the officer that he gave no provocation or escalation. He couldn't escape either. He's handicapped to boot. He was in fear of death or grave bodily injury. The officer agreed.Do not ever confuse the opinion of an officer at the scene with a with a finding of guilt or innocence. It has no authority.

In the same scenario the only thing I would have done differently is pointing the gun. I would not have pointed the gun. I would have prepared to shoot, exposing the gun and verbally warned of my intentions should the glass break.That "only thing" could make all the difference in terms of your record, your fortune, and your personal freedom.

threegun

February 7, 2011, 03:23 PM

That "only thing" could make all the difference in terms of your record, your fortune, and your personal freedom.

For me I agree. For Microgunner I disagree as the handicapped can articulate fear of death or grave bodily easier.

Do not ever confuse the opinion of an officer at the scene with a with a finding of guilt or innocence. It has no authority.

While true, I haven't seen a single case like this were the States Attorney comes back to charge after the officer doesn't make an arrest.

I also want to say that its very easy to sit behind the computer and analyze an event but without being there, feeling the bad guys violence and its effects on your gut, its just not the same.

I have known Microgunner for two plus decades (most as coworkers). One thing I know is that he doesn't spook easily. He is highly intelligent. The second to last thing he would want is to lose his gun rights (being an avid collector). The last thing he would want is to be injured or killed by a piece of garbage heck bent on doing him harm.

MLeake

February 7, 2011, 04:25 PM

... a little while ago, today...

... getting choked out and armbar tapped out by some BJJ guys. I'm working on learning more down-on-the-mat techniques, as my personal repertoire is heavily biased toward standing locks and throws. Part of the learning process is accepting being humbled, and fighting on through it.

One of these guys looks like a monster if you see him with a shirt off; seriously washboarded, with very defined musculature. Dressed, he just looks like a 5'8", 170lb surfer dude. (BTW, he's going to Rio for a BJJ tournament later this year; I wouldn't be surprised to see him show up on one of the MMA shows in the next couple years.)

The other guy looks like a younger, darker-haired Kevin Spacey. Maybe 5'10", and maybe 170lbs. Not exactly intimidating looking. (Note, he is a former Marine, and he's in shape.)

In normal clothing, neither guy looks like all that much. Luckily, they are both very nice guys.

Either guy would have me out cold or broken in two minutes or less, in a real confrontation. Was forced to tap tonight to a couple of triangle chokes, a knee-to-belly choke, and an armbar that I got trapped into after I managed to slip out of a kimora. (I'm 6ft, 215lbs, and not all that far out of shape.) In reality, I'd have been out cold and helpless, or would have had a hyper-extended elbow or dislocated shoulder and been helpless.

It can be very dangerous to assume no disparity of force exists, because the BG is unarmed. If he's aggressive enough to want to start a brawl with a stranger, unprovoked, he just might have the ability to back up his attitude, and the conservative choice is to assume that's the case.

Would I recommend pulling a gun when other options exist? Of course not. But if the exit is blocked, and the guy continues to close, then I don't know that I'd recommend trying to slug it out with somebody who might be every bit as tough as he thinks he is.

Legal problems would suck. Death or disability would suck even worse.

OldShooter

February 7, 2011, 04:58 PM

Some good points here and some not so good "...it all happened so fast".

Get some instruction and know the laws of your area, state or municipality. A mistake could cost you dearly.

I once had a guy tell me he was going to kill me, he was serious. Of course he was drunk, very drunk. He couldn't stand up. He was on his back on the ground. I didn't carry in those days and I wouldn't have felt justified in shooting him, he was incapable of hurting me. I did want to kick him in the groin very badly, but I didn't even do that, the neighbors were watching.

threegun

February 7, 2011, 05:13 PM

Mleake, Great post. Like you I don't think some folks understand just how quickly someone with fight training can hurt them with only their body parts. Heck someone without training can do so as well. Thanks for the insight.

threegun

February 7, 2011, 05:20 PM

I once had a guy tell me he was going to kill me, he was serious. Of course he was drunk, very drunk. He couldn't stand up. He was on his back on the ground. I didn't carry in those days and I wouldn't have felt justified in shooting him, he was incapable of hurting me. I did want to kick him in the groin very badly, but I didn't even do that, the neighbors were watching.

The bad guy must have the following three things before you can shoot. Ability, opportunity, and intent to cause death or grave bodily injury. Your guy didn't have the ability.

In the op's case he had all three if the bad guy closed on him. In Microgunners case he had two however one, opportunity, was a thin piece of glass barrier away. Waiting for the glass to break for him to point could pose a problem given his physical condition.

OldMarksman

February 7, 2011, 06:30 PM

Posted by threegun: The bad guy must have the following three things before you can shoot. Ability, opportunity, and intent to cause death or grave bodily injury. Right--and, of course, you must have no other choice.

In the op's case he had all three if the bad guy closed on him.Not as I read it:

But what if there is no disparity of force, being that it appears to be an even match. ...The BG has no weapons except fists.

Yes, it is possible that the man could cause you serious injury. The question is, would reasonable persons believe that the person, if he so intended, would cause you serouis unjury if you did not employ deadly force? I seriously doubt it.

In Microgunners case he had two however one, opportunity, was a thin piece of glass barrier away.Based on Microgunner's account, I tend to agree. Disparity of force existed, and this surely indicates intent:

He stopped at my window and began screaming at the top of his lungs to move my %$#*&^ car or he was going to kick my %$#*)(^$#*^% a$$.The problem, and it would be a problem for all of us, is that unless there was a witness who was willing to testify to that effect, MG, or you or I for that matter, may not be able to produce the evidence necessary to even get a favorable jury instruction. That most intemperate man who was afflicted with acute parking lot rage at the time would appear to the jury as the very model of gentlemanly decorum, and he would surely tell a much different story.

Waiting for the glass to break for him to point could pose a problem given his physical condition.I don't see that. He has a proper grip on his gun and is ready; it's just that he has the gun below the field of view.
He has done nothing to risk being charged or to give the other guy a basis for filing a complaint, and a smile and a wave with the other hand may have ended the tirade.

However, should the enraged oaf then attack, the man in the car should be able to completely empty the gun into the thug, if necessary, in less than half a second after he first hears the glass breaking.

At that point, all four prerequisites exist--ability, opportunity, jeopardy, and preclusion, and there should be ample evidence to support a defense of justifiability.

threegun

February 7, 2011, 07:52 PM

I don't see that. He has a proper grip on his gun and is ready; it's just that he has the gun below the field of view.
He has done nothing to risk being charged or to give the other guy a basis for filing a complaint, and a smile and a wave with the other hand may have ended the tirade.

However, should the enraged oaf then attack, the man in the car should be able to completely empty the gun into the thug, if necessary, in less than half a second after he first hears the glass breaking.

At that point, all four prerequisites exist--ability, opportunity, jeopardy, and preclusion, and there should be ample evidence to support a defense of justifiability.

Give the other guy a complaint? Seriously? The "oaf" attacked MG who simply prepared to defend himself since he couldn't flee.

In a perfect world everything goes as planned. In the real world the breaking glass gets in your eye causing a momentary pause and/or loss of target acquisition. In the real world the glass breaking blow is followed by another unhampered by anything. In the real world a man at arms length away is a real threat to gun retention. In the real world the drivers side compartment restricts movement preventing simple gun wielding or punch slipping.

So you can remain in your perfect world free of Mr Murphy. I'm going to take each event and apply a real world defense to it.

OldMarksman

February 7, 2011, 11:03 PM

Give the other guy a complaint? Seriously? The "oaf" attacked MG who simply prepared to defend himself since he couldn't flee. Of course. We know that.

What is the evidence?

cracked91

February 8, 2011, 05:13 PM

After reading this thread for a while, this is the way I see it.

Option A: Do not draw or shoot till you are physically attacked.
Advantage: You are on stronger legal grounds, its going to be easier to justify in court.
Disadvantage: You risk being severely beaten, permanently injured, or killed. Its not the fists that get you, its the BG stomping on your head after you have taken a blow and fallen to the floor.

Option B: Draw and shoot when you believe an attack is imminent.
Advantage: Your probably still alive and unharmed
Disadvantage: Extremely weak legal ground drawing and shooting an unarmed person, especially without witnesses, your going to need a good lawyer.

Option C: Draw and prepare to shoot when you believe an attack is imminent.
Advantage: BG will probably take off as soon as he sees your gun emerge. If he does not, you have a MUCH better idea of what you are dealing with, and, are prepared to meet the attack if it does happen. If BG leaves, there is a 90% chance he is not going to call the police and tell them that he was mugging someone and they pulled a gun on him.
Disadvantage: Still not solid legal ground, but then again, its EXTREMELY rare to be on SOLID legal ground drawing a weapon outside of a home invasion. You could be charged with BRANDISHING!!! A MISDEMEANOR in most cases!!! Better then being charged 45k to have you face reconstructed with plastic!! And there is an extremely good chance you would not be charged if you called and reported first.

When I was in 14 years old, my then 17 year old brother was beaten nearly into a coma in his weight room at his high school. It started the EXACT same way as the OP describes. He stumbled after the first punch, as he was stumbling backward, a friend of the other kid stuck out his leg and tripped him. He fell backward and hit his head on a weight and was knocked out. After he was knocked out laying face down, the attacker sat down on his back and beat him till the back of his head was bloody. His jaw had to be mostly reconstructed. After going back to school, his GPA went from a 4.33 to a 1.86 within the first grading quarter. Before he had many, many scholarship opportunities. Now, he is working part time managing a small cafe while he pays his way through a community college. My parents are still paying off the plastic surgery.

Had this happened today with my little brother (that age now) in a setting other than a no-carry or school zone, I would have drawn and shot a 16 year old kid. And if I went to prison for 8 years, well tough luck.

Many people here seem to doubt what an unarmed person can do. These kids were not skilled fighters. None of them were over 17. None of them were over 180lbs. None of them had weapons. They didn't even kick or stomp on his head (which would have easily killed him).

Step into 2011, people don't pull off their shirts and hike their pants up to their belly buttons before boxing it out anymore.

threegun

February 8, 2011, 06:57 PM

Of course. We know that.

What is the evidence?

As I said in an earlier post, its very easy to sit behind the computer and Monday morning quarterback the event. What evidence.....ask Microgunner what his blood pressure was and how his stomach felt. Since you weren't there and don't possess the ability to imagine being there, we are simply at the end of the debate trail.

I thank you for the input and concern for TFL's members freedom.

OldMarksman

February 8, 2011, 07:49 PM

Posted by threegun.its very easy to sit behind the computer and Monday morning quarterback the event.I'm afraid I was a little curt in post 117.

What I meant to say was, and from reading other posts of yours I believe you understand it, is that unless Microgunner had a corroborative witness or maybe a cell phone video, he would have only his own testimony that the other man was attacking, and the other man's testimony would of course contradict that.

So, if the other guy, having collected his wits, decided to report Microgunner for aggravated assault, he would potentially have one piece of corroborative evidence--the ability to describe the gun. That's from one of Ayoob's books; I didn't think of it.

Why might the guy do that? Two possible reasons: (1) he may have genuinely felt wrongly threatened, from his perception; or (2), he may have just been mean and vindictive, and he may heard enough about the mandatory sentencing law in Florida to give him an idea about how to harm Microgrunner.

Since you weren't there and don't possess the ability to imagine being there, ...I was not there, and my imagination may not serve all that well.

However, I think everyone can understand that the episode was traumatic; heck, even having someone in a car box you in and yell will raise your heart rate and blood pressure.

So, what would I think that I might have done?

Microgunner said he would shoot if the window were broken. I am pretty sure I would too, at least if a disparity of force existed.

He also pointed the gun, and in the heat of the moment, I might have done exactly the same thing, at the time.

However, Microgunner's harrowing experience gave us all a lot of opportunity to think about it and hash it all out a year and a half ago, and just maybe I am, as a result, programmed to do something just a little different.

But then, whether I would be able to do that under great stress, as you imply, remains an unknown.

The question I am posing is not whether Microgunner was potentially wrong or culpable in any way; that's water over the dam, and none of us have been empaneled to decide it or given first hand testimony. The point is is whether we might be able to do better should it happen to us in the future, not because we are any smarter or wiser than he is, but because he has given us a scenario to think about before we do face the same kind of situation.

threegun

February 8, 2011, 07:57 PM

Beautifully said and I agree. Thanks for the clarity.

Microgunner

February 10, 2011, 10:05 AM

The question I am posing is not whether Microgunner was potentially wrong or culpable in any way; that's water over the dam, and none of us have been empaneled to decide it or given first hand testimony. The point is is whether we might be able to do better should it happen to us in the future, not because we are any smarter or wiser than he is, but because he has given us a scenario to think about before we do face the same kind of situation.

The best thing to come from this whole distasteful, but exhilerating experience was that no one had to be shot or injured to defuse the situation. Every cop for miles around was on the scene and the consensus among them, with the aid of an unsolicited witness, was that I acted within Florida state statutes. I have replayed this incident over and over in my mind and am very thankful it ended peacefully.
So yes, it was a learning experience for me.

atlctyslkr

February 10, 2011, 10:09 PM

Is it your first night at fightlcub?

markj

February 11, 2011, 05:25 PM

Is it your first night at fightlcub?

Hey, first rule man!! :)

DixieboyFL

February 13, 2011, 06:43 PM

Florida passed the "Stand Your Ground Law" a few years back which in essence means you do not have to run or take flight when you or someone else is threatend with serious bodily harm or death and you have the right to protect youself or them.

The Florida law is a self-defense, self-protection law. It has four key components:

It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.

In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.

I have seen it in action on several occasions locally and each and every time, the State Attorney's Office has followed the letter of the law and not charged the defending individual.

Too bad we, living in a "Free Country", even have to have such a law to fall back on when defending our own lives or our loved ones lives.

Just my 2 cents.......

threegun

February 13, 2011, 07:32 PM

Too bad we, living in a "Free Country", even have to have such a law to fall back on when defending our own lives or our loved ones lives.

It's our own fault for allowing this mindset into power.

Constantine

February 13, 2011, 07:40 PM

All these questions are cleared right up when you actually go through an incident where you have to draw your weapon. Then you become so sober in this understanding of when it's right and wrong.

-fin-

106RR

February 22, 2011, 03:19 AM

There is a thing called the "Harries Principle" legality hinges on dissparity of force. There has to be a big enough difference in size or force to warrant a fear for your life or great bodily injury. Does your opponent have martial arts training? Has he taken a martial arts stance? Are you aged or infirmed? All these things come into play when you go before a grand jury to explain the shooting. There is also a racial/socio-economic/class issue. If the deceased was related to a senator you're finished. If he lives and comes to court with a dream team of lawyers, you're finished. If he is a friend of a corrupt bay area politician, you're finished. If you are poor, you're finished. If you are the wrong color for the occasion, you're finished.
You have to realize that if you are being beaten unconscious, you will not be able to distinguish that from death as the darkness descends.
It is best to avoid the fight so you shoot only if there is no other choice.

youngunz4life

June 25, 2011, 04:44 AM

I am pro for the 'you might have to draw' argument but you definately need to keep your cool before it reaches that point. going back and forth as a situation escalates is not a good thing while carrying a weapon. However, one should not have to allow himself or herself to be drawn into a fistfight.

Nnobby45

June 25, 2011, 05:20 AM

Can you draw and shoot if the BG won’t move out of your way so you can leave or do you have to fight?

Not trying to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you're asking if it's ok to shoot some one so you can leave in order to avoid a fight.

Were you faced with death or serious bodily injury? And don't forget the old retired folks on the jury who don't own guns and who will decide your fate based on whether they would have pulled the trigger had they been in your shoes.

What do you think their answer (verdict) would be?

TXGunNut

June 25, 2011, 09:15 AM

I was in more than my share of fights as a young leo but age and maturity eventually taught me to avoid them. I've learned to smile, be polite and generally convey to them that trying to mess up my day is going to totally screw up theirs, and I'm OK with that.

JustThisGuy

June 25, 2011, 09:40 AM

It is always good to use a kind word.

However,,,

"You can get more done with a kind word and a gun, than you can with a kind word alone." - Al Capone

Clearly if the BG is coming at you, and will not back off when he knows you want to leave, and he will not back off when he sees your gun. Then you have a right to fear for your life for he has demonstrated that he thinks he is a superior force to your gun.

JerryM

June 25, 2011, 03:32 PM

Remember that in most states deadly force can only be used if you fear death or great bodily harm.

Since I have never been in a situation mentioned I cannot really imagine it could happen to me. I never frequented places where fights and violence occurred. I still don't.

Jerry

JustThisGuy

June 26, 2011, 12:23 PM

From Post 89...
High among the guy's problems is the fact that the attackers were unarmed, even though he was outnumbered.

I have a hard time believing that there isn't more to this case than we are aware of. Multiple attackers even unarmed is without a doubt a justifiable use of force should they attack you.

Two of the three attackers were women.

Also see post 128 (relevant principle) and http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/images/stories/Hickey%20Booklet.pdf which is a brief on the case.

C0untZer0

June 26, 2011, 01:44 PM

I ask my kids this same question all the time...

8shot357

June 26, 2011, 02:10 PM

This is the first time I've seen this OP, I didn't feel like reading six pages, I can't imagine there is nothing that hasn't been said or repeated.

I carry pepper/tear gas spray, and a stun gun in that order before I'd even think of pulling my revolver out.

TheNocturnus

June 28, 2011, 01:20 AM

I would try to avoid it all together but some people are just looking for a fight.
If I was truly unable to reason with the attacker or get away, I would warn them to leave or they will be shot as I am afraid for my life.

I'm 31 and am disabled with a back injury, if I were to get into a fight I would be in serious crippling pain very shortly after it began. I would have no choice but to end the confrontation with deadly force.

fhwiggins

June 28, 2011, 07:20 AM

If I'm cornered and someone is threatening to beat the tar out of me....and if I think there is a reasonable chance that I'm going to get hurt, I'm pulling my gun and am going to use it.

Amen Brother!;)

Edward429451

June 28, 2011, 12:11 PM

Now how in the world am I supposed to know that he is unarmed? As soon as he restricts my options I'm drawing and going to low ready, at least. I think that a reasonable and prudent individual would assume that the dirtbag has at least a knife. Let's hope he doesn't make any furtive movements.

I'm getting too old to go hand to hand. Even if there is minimal disparity of force, he might be having a good day on the same day that I may be having a bad day. If words can't settle it I have to up the ante and take control of the situation.
I want to go home at night too.

Edward429451

June 28, 2011, 12:15 PM

It's our own fault for allowing this mindset into power.

Now THAT is funny. :D

BGutzman

June 28, 2011, 11:13 PM

You never have to fight, dying is always an option.....

threegun

June 29, 2011, 08:41 AM

Now THAT is funny.

Funny but sadly true. We elect folks who seem to be more concerned with the criminal than the victim. Folks who hate the second amendment. Folks who have lost sight of the definition of personal responsibility.

TylerD45ACP

June 29, 2011, 11:32 AM

No kidding now they are trying to put a TAX! on guns. Also they were trying to ban ALL 'magazine' fed weapons. That leaves pretty much nothing for us shooters to enjoy. I am really sick of antigunners, most have never even shot a firearm. Shoot what you want to ban before you make judgement on it. Too many rules and regulations coming into play.

threegun

June 29, 2011, 12:17 PM

edited to comply with the rules

Sorry Pax.

pax

June 29, 2011, 02:32 PM

Hey, everyone, quick reminder: this is the Tactics and Training area of TFL, not the civil rights discussion area. If you'd like to discuss gun laws & freedom, please take it "downstairs" to the Law and Civil Rights area.

Thanks,

pax

BlueTrain

June 29, 2011, 03:30 PM

Here's another take on the original question about whether you have to fight:

Sometimes you have to fight because you can't run away. Sometimes you have to fight because it is the honorable thing to do, even if you have no chance of winning. It makes no difference what you're armed with or what they are are armed with. And you may not have much time to ponder the situation either.

Edward429451

June 29, 2011, 05:37 PM

I think disparity of force is for the schoolground. I can't see if the BG has a black belt in Kung Fu or whatever and he can't see my bad back even if we are the same size. Handguns were made to stop fights and equal the playing field. No you do not have to fight fair or climb some sort of escalation of force ladder. That's police stuff.

The smaller the BG is the more inclined I would be to think he has something up his sleeve or he would not approach someone as big as him.

TylerD45ACP

June 29, 2011, 07:44 PM

I know when its time to fight when my life or the life of loved ones is in immediate danger. I am then going to take action.

paladin-34

June 30, 2011, 12:35 AM

When my son was 12 (or so) we had just parked in the driveway. I walked around to the trunk to bring the guns in the house, we had just been out to the range. I popped the trunk and took my carry gun out to empty it before carrying the guns in for cleaning when one of my wife’s friends pulled up, I turned to say high, dropping my 380 auto into my pocket to keep it out of site as I waved. The cars on the street were parked tight so traffic could only go one way at a time, so she drove up to the next door neighbors drive to turn around. She did not know the reason why no one was parked in front of that house. But she found it out soon enough.

She pulled into the neighbors drive to let the cars behind her through. When she realized the neighbor was running towards her car with a tire iron pointed at her. I saw the fear in her face, it was like someone ran a nail right through the center of my body from head to toe, then I saw him. She put the car in reverse and gunned it, not looking for traffic and just missed the car that had been behind her as she turned into the driveway. I started yelling: “Your gona get someone killed!” over and over as he chased her into the street.She somehow got the car into the street without hitting something or be getting hit by another car. Only to find him pulling back to take a swing at the passenger side wind shield of her vehicle.

By now my wife, my son, and his wife were all yelling with me. She wasted no time putting the car in drive and got out of there. He did not swing at her car, instead turned looking at me.

He took off directly for me, swinging the tire iron. I continued to yell: “what are you doing” time slowed way down! I realized my son was between us so I pushed him behind me. Then realized the 380 was in my right pocket. I reached in and found it. clicked the safety off. pulled it out of my pocket and held it on the side of my leg away from him. He continued towards me, I herd nothing, I only saw him. As I stood there yelling as he closed on me. All I could think of was did I click safety on or off.

During the eon it took for him to reach me, winding up and lung at me all I could think of was is the safety on or off. He finally reached me leapt into the air to get max inertia on the tire iron as it looped behind his back and over his head and started coming down on me. I put my left hand up to block the tire iron then pulled the right hand up to shoot. My plan was to shoot then hit the ground hoping to get out of the arc of his swing.

I don’t know what it was that brought him back to reality, his face went blank, he stopped almost nose to nose with me, the tire iron came down very slowly I slipped the gun back in my pocket. I rose and we were face to face, standing there, he would not look at me. I could not take my eyes off him. As he started to back away I realized everyone was yelling, his wife was screaming his name, my son: “shoot him”. My wife had gone down the street to the friend to check on her, out of her car and shaking.

The police officer who responded told me that had he been in my shoes the neighbor would be dead. I said NY requires that I retreat. He said you moved your son out of the way. Then continued 12 out of 23people just like you have to find you were not justified, then 12 people have to feel the same. Sounds like much better odds than you had.

What did I learn from this? First and foremost, I won’t carry a gun with a manual safety. my entire outlook on these encounters changed after that. Its not about what we say we will do safely sitting behind a pc with no real threat to speak of. Its about how much rope are you willing to let out before you take a life changing action. We honestly do not know where we will fall there till its to late. And most importantly how can LEO face this every day? I just can not fathom that.

Joe

TylerD45ACP

June 30, 2011, 12:50 AM

Wow intense. Im glad you and your family are ok. Sounds like he saw the 380 and had a quick mind change. That must have been crazy thinking you might be shooting someone. What kind of pistol was it by the way. I like 1911 it has a saftey but I know its off because it switches down.

paladin-34

July 1, 2011, 12:24 AM

Only my son saw the gun. It was a bryco model 380. Safety works very easy, up is safe down is fire. The problem is, in this kind of situation my focus was on the guy running at me exclusively. I knew I moved the safety but could not discern which way I was moving the safety, only that I was moving it. This lead me to look for a gun that better suited what I learned.

I initially looked at glock but could not carry cocked and locked. I now understand why glocks fit LEO uses so well, but that would not do for me. I finally settled on sig because it can be carried hammer down with an auto safety.

Joe

TylerD45ACP

July 1, 2011, 02:42 PM

Thats intellegent to learn from that. I could see how you could get distracted and be thinking about the guy not the saftey. I still prefer the 1911 but its an interesting point. Sometimes I like DA/SA Smith and Wessons for that reason, too pipe one and keep the saftey off. This allows for a holstered gun with a heavy 1st pull. I cant help but have my 1911 45 with me mostly though :D.

paladin-34

July 1, 2011, 04:29 PM

I understand, I have a 1911A1 but it’s weight is almost twice the sig. that’s like putting seven rolls of quarters in your pocket vs 4. Its also the same type of safety action I had on the broyco, safe up, shot down.

My son is a Aircraft rescue and fire first responder, now. He always tells me that in a situation we loose fine motor skills and that is what I experienced. He says police are trained to rack the slide by grasping it between their fingers, all of them, and palm. because in emergency they will not be able to grab it between their thumb and index finger. Gross motor vs fine motor. he has a list of fine motor skills he is always holding over my head. i hate racking the slide that way, its so clunky. flicking a safety off is also fine motor. i have a Ruger P-89 for Bullseye every time i bring it out he finds time to remind me that i should practice with gross motor only. that means holding it in the right hand, folding my left over it like im going to rack the slide and pulling it up or down with all fingers. but he's right.

Joe

TylerD45ACP

July 2, 2011, 12:11 PM

Absolutley you loose fine motor skills when your adrenaline is pumping. I still advocate my 1911 but agree that your point it a vaild one. I believe there is a certain point when your adrenaline kicks in you loose fine motor control until because you are in 'Fight or Flight' but you regain control once your heart starts beating over a certain amount I forget what it is. Very interest post and idea though.

hartlock

July 6, 2011, 10:06 AM

Been there, done this! I was approached by a man 20 years younger than
me, in a bar parking lot. We had had some words between us in the previous
couple of days. He had threatened to kill me if he ever saw me again ( this
was done by phone, in this case, my cell phone and he was stupid enough to
leave a message on my phone detailing what he was gonna do to me! ) and
when I saw him, I discreetly pulled my gun from my front pocket and held it at
my right side. He had seen the gun, apparently, and asked me if I was gonna
shoot him. I told him if he struck me, I was. He hit me in the left jaw with his
right hand and I shot him. I went to jail, of course. You can count on that,
regardless of what witnesses say, etc. But, I was eventually cleared of all
charges. So, I say, do what you gotta do, because sometimes you dont have
the time to go over all the ramifications in your mind before you are beat to a
pulp, or killed!

TylerD45ACP

July 6, 2011, 04:58 PM

Absolutley. I would have done the same thing. I would have told him to stop where he was and if you attack me I am going to fire upon you. If he attacked I would fire. You are right, I rather be judged by 12 any day than carried by 6.
--Interesting story when I was 16-17 I was walking down the sidwalk near where I live. To my left were cars driving in the same direction I was walking. Then I turned as I heard a pop and glass shatter. I crouched behind a firehydrant because it was closest thing. My other two friends just stood up and watched. Anyway, a black man was firing a 22-32 caliber at the car behind him (couldn't have been any bigger) and I saw the rounds popping through the windshield of the guys car and some seemed to be deflecting. The passenger of the following car hangs out his window and yells "shoot at me with that piece of sH&^", then opens fire with what looked like a model 36snub 38spl., hitting a tail light, thats all I saw. I was no more than 15ft. from the cars and had a clear view of the whole shootout, maybe 15 rounds total discharged. They drove out of sight at lightning speed and were apprehended shortly after. Luckily no one was hit there were alot of innocents around including children. But man it was INTENSE! I later found out it was some stupid gang stuff.

Molly429

July 6, 2011, 06:27 PM

Although the factor of being responsible for securing your weapon - preventing anyone from taking control of it - goes with the issued discussion, and it is considered in this thread, imho, the enormous importance of that factor is not adequately subjected.

For a variety of real reasons, a lot of people are simply unable to fight, or run.

When that is the case, the danger of an aggressor disarming and murdering the CCW with his or her own weapon - and/or murdering or otherwise endangering others with it - is an immediate and paramount, very realistic concern.

The commonplace potential for the described scenario and circumstance accompanies all law abiding - especially senior and otherwise handicapped - adult citizens who elect to defend themselves from predatory, aggressive BG's.

Again, the tremendous responsibility of the CCW is to keep their weapon secure in all respects, certainly preventing any occasion of it being taken from them: that very real danger must be guarded with a preventative resolution to use the weapon on an unarmed mugger, when the latter aggressively deprives the CCW from employing any other preventative recourse.

Does not the vigilant qualification: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident' , find a justifiably emphatic place in this proposed dilemma?

TylerD45ACP

July 6, 2011, 06:57 PM

Thats a very good point about weapon retention Molly. You make some very valid points their like ones weapon being used against them. The handicapped and elderly have a disadvantage as you said as well in not being able to fight. I remember watching a man beat a 90yr old man without mercy to steal his car. He kept beating and beating him when he already could have taken the car. The video was very sad and difficult to watch and I felt horribly for the 90yr old man. He cant really defend himself or fight back so what does he do? He needs a means of defense but it could also be used against him. The there was a case of a 71yr old man who a robber 'thought' would be a easy victim but was mistaken. The 71yr. old Ex-Marine beat the BG up and he was restrained until authorities could arrive. Good post, shows how responsible you really need to be.

DiscoRacing

July 6, 2011, 07:04 PM

I worry more about whether or not my guns Im carrying will be big enough...

...Sorry...Little humor there....

...those who know me will laugh.:o

TylerD45ACP

July 6, 2011, 07:39 PM

Yep they will. The problem is you will be disarmed at 90yrs old because you couldnt lift your (S&W 500) fast enough. Luckily you pulled your BUG (Desert Eagle .44) and thwarted the attack. Good thing you didnt have to use your BackupBUG (Ruger .357);). You still have the custom box of Goodies lol, can I see that pic again.